Is the judiciary fit for purpose?

[happydappy2]

Seems almost daily I see news reports of serious sexual offenders walking free from court, with a suspended sentence or community service, even though they have been caught with horrific images of child sexual assault/rape. Why are these men not sent to prison? How are our children safe with these monsters living amongst us? Why is the penalty for possession of such awful child sexual abuse not taken more seriously? Where is the deterrent?

Until several years ago it was mandatory for all child abusers and those who had csa images to be sent to jail, then when sir kier starmer was dpp he headed up a sentencing guidelines committee which decided that csa images and child abusers no longer needed to be automatically sent to jail.
So the issue is the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences against children were loosened up by our current pm. Judges must follow the guidelines and the threshold for jail was raised far to high (I still think that it should be an automatic jail term btw) so many of these men don't meet the new threshold.

The above more than anything is why I've never trusted starmer with womens rights nor do I believe any of his bs about halving vawg

There's literally no more space in jail. The population has grown so fast the prison facilities can't cope anymore and there's no funding to build new ones. In fact, prisons are being closed rather than repaired.

KS knows this, and he's kicking out of prison actual murderers early, leaving them free to commit crime again, to make room for people who disagree with him about his stance on immigration.

Funnily enough a lot of people were recently sent to prison in a short space of time for "liking" the wrong Tweets or Facebook posts opposing his political stance.
Downloading actual images of child abuse however, no no can't possibly incarcerate these people. Heaven forbid.

Those at the top tier of society often say that there are too many offenders when it comes to offences such as paedophilia and viewing images of child sexual abuse and that we don't have room to lock them up.

To which I say, build more bloody prisons!

Letting these men away with these crimes serves to normalise their disgusting behaviour and a legal telling off with suspended sentence is no credible deterrent.

If Kier Starker personally changed the sentencing guidelines, resulting in more child sex offenders not being sent to prison, this really should be widely publicised. There is no justification for it.

Is that right? The sentencing guidelines are designed by the judiciary, and the CPS have no part in setting them. I would like to know your source on this.

Btw my view is that these people are sex offenders and should be in prison. They present a risk to children and women.

Its been reported that Starmer sat on the sentencing council when the guidelines were set

I think we are going to find out that no such thing happened. But a lie can spread before the truth gets its pants on.

The judiciary set the guidelines, not the CPS. Can anyone get the facts? That being the actual guidelines, when made and reviewed? Not “several years ago”

I didnt say thr CPS set the guidelines. I dont know if they do or dont.

I'll repeat what i wrote- 'Its been reported that Starmer sat on the sentencing council when the guidelines were set'

Well I would like to see your source.

Keir Starmer was DPP until 2013.

The relevant guidelines were set in 2014.

Where is your source?

The guidelines were introduced in spring 2014. The meetings were held to discuss the guidelines were in 2013.

Also I’m going to add something else.

If there is not a sentencing guidelines then judges can sentence how they wish. Prison was not mandated.

There were not guidelines until April 2014. That would have been for Alison Saunders, Starmer’s successor to sign off on, though as DPP she would not have set the guidelines. That was and still is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice of the Criminal Courts and would have been presented to the Lord Chancellor at the time, who could have objected.

Well that’s the thing isn’t it.

People have to be prepared for the additional costs of investigating/prosecuting and imprisoning these offenders.
it literally is billions per year, and the electorate don’t want to spend that money. They are being delusional in that respect.

The Sentencing Council sets the guidelines, not the judiciary. If you Google it, there are multiple sources (most of which are not natural Labour supporters!) that say Keir Starmer sat on the Sentencing Council as DPP when new guidelines for sexual offences were drawn up.

That may be true, but it was under a Tory government which seemingly did not object or take any action. You can blame Keir personally, perhaps, but he was nothing to do with the Labour Party at the time.

It is depressing that so many men commit these crimes that we’d run out of prison space if we jailed them all, yet women are jailed for not paying their TV licence!

KS knows this, and he's kicking out of prison actual murderers early,

No, he isn't. The early release provisions don't apply to offences involving violence.

It's amazing the lies that are flying around about this.

1).Delays in getting a hearing are worrying to all in the Court and judicial system.
2).Shortage of Duty Solicitors means those accused of rape and violence are being bailed.
3). Government have refused a request for an extra 5,500 days of court sittings.
All three of above points are covered in today's Times. Page 52.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/pressure-mounts-for-courts-to-run-at-full-capacity-ncpsqjv0h

Judges and barristers condemned the decision to save money over ensuring timely trials, predicting that it will result in added delays in rape trials by more than two years. Sitting judges suggested that the move will result in the release of potentially “dangerous offenders” who have been remanded to prison pending trials once the custody time limit of six months has been reached.Highlighting the short-sightedness and perversity of the ministry’s decision, one judge says: “We have the courts, the staff, the judges and the determination to work as hard as we can at any cost … We aren’t being allowed to. This decision cannot be in the interests of justice or the public.”Prior also criticises the justice ministry’s failure to publish updated criminal court statistics and a report from the criminal legal aid advisory board — the independent body set up by the government. The KC claims that ministers have had the report for two months and calls for it to be published before the budget.

Criminal justice needs money. Across the board. Prisons, courts, rehabilitation, policing. All of it starved.

Sexual offending and sexual crimes are expensive to manage, prosecute and are mostly committed by men. I confess that the focus on Starmer really irritated me here because it’s my direct experience that lack of money, coupled with institutional misogyny in criminal justice circles plays a far greater part than one person ever could. That is Harriet Wistrich’s point with which I agree. It is absolutely built in to the system.

You know they released the wrong prisoners, right? They couldn't even get that right.

Perhaps instead of shouting about 'lies' you could bring some evidence to the table to back up your argument? Who WAS released, and what evidence is there that none of them were violent men?

lack of money, coupled with institutional misogyny in criminal justice circles plays a far greater part than one person ever could.

KS is proving himself to back the institutional misogyny and ideological austerity that you talk about, wholeheartedly without any room for even slight reform.
He is also proving himself to be a totalitarian pushing for dictatorship level state/thought control.

He is releasing violent male prisoners in order to make space to lock up people who "like" the wrong posts on social media.

That is just waffle. Get some facts.

Go get some facts yourself.

Come on, show the people where they are wrong.

I already did "get some facts" 😂

Nobody is jailed for not paying their TV licence. It is not an imprisonable offence

Up thread we had some posts that inferred that Keir Starmer directly influenced sentencing guidelines so that sex offenders did not receive prison. That is not true.

If people incite violence to a criminal standard online, and that is proven, a judge decides if they go to prison. Not Keir Starmer.

On prisoner release; that is something that has been done by his government.

To suggest that someone Keir Starmer is highly responsible for the mess that the criminal justice system is in ridiculous. He is certainly in charge of it after 14 years of total mismanagement and underfunding but to suggest that he carries the can uniquely is pretty biased opinion.